climate sciencehttp://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/477/all
enMedia Coverage of Climate Science Is Stunting Climate Action, Especially in UShttp://www.desmogblog.com/2015/04/12/media-coverage-climate-science-stunting-climate-action-especially-us
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/shutterstock_257412721.jpg?itok=1DyDrY25" width="200" height="133" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The <span class="caps">UN</span>’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change plays an enormous role in shaping how climate science gets translated into policy in countries around the world, but so does the media.<br /><br />
A new report finds that, while the <span class="caps">IPCC</span> could have managed the rollout of its <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/" target="_blank">Fifth Assessment Report</a> (<span class="caps">AR</span>5) better, lack of compelling coverage, especially in <span class="caps">US</span> media, is leading to less public demand for action and hence political will to adopt policies to deal with climate change.<br /><br />
The report, <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n4/full/nclimate2535.html" target="_blank">published in Nature Climate Change</a>, examines how the <span class="caps">IPCC</span>’s release strategy around <span class="caps">AR</span>5 contributed to diminishing returns in terms of media coverage, as well as the ways media outlets chose to frame the issue and how that impacts public perception of climate issues.<br /><br />
Researchers with the University of Exeter studied print, broadcast, and online media in both the <span class="caps">US</span> and the <span class="caps">UK</span> and found that the biggest difference was that there is simply more climate coverage in the <span class="caps">UK</span>. A lot more: three times as many articles and five times as many broadcasts were dedicated to climate change in the <span class="caps">UK</span> as in the <span class="caps">US</span>.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>There’s not just more climate coverage in the <span class="caps">UK</span>, but less divisive coverage, too, largely due to the fact that the climate is such a partisan issue in the <span class="caps">US</span>, which is not as true in the <span class="caps">UK</span>. (Although that's changing quickly, as our colleagues at <a href="http://desmog.uk/">DeSmog <span class="caps">UK</span></a> investigate every day.)<br /><br />
The <span class="caps">IPCC</span> chose to release each of the three individual Working Group reports that make up <span class="caps">AR</span>5 sequentially, releasing <span class="caps">WG</span>1 (The Physical Science Basis) in Autumn 2013, with <span class="caps">WG</span>2 (Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability) and <span class="caps">WG</span>3 (Mitigation of Climate Change) released close together in Spring 2014.<br /><br />
As a result, <span class="caps">WG</span>3 received far less coverage than <span class="caps">WG</span>1 or <span class="caps">WG</span>2 across all media sources (<span class="caps">TV</span>, newspapers, social media) in both countries, though each Working Group’s contribution was “a key event in the public debate about climate change,” according to lead author Saffron O’Neill.<br /><br />
When media did cover <span class="caps">AR</span>5, O’Neill says, it was depicted using one of several frames that either emphasise or downplay different aspects and impacts of climate change.<br /><br />
“We found reporting of <span class="caps">WG</span>1 was often contested and politicised, using frames like Uncertain Science, whereas the reporting of <span class="caps">WG</span>2 and <span class="caps">WG</span>3 used a more diverse selection of frames including Opportunity and Morality and Ethics,” O’Neill told DeSmogBlog. “These findings on framing are important, as social science research shows that some frames are likely to be more engaging for audiences than others.”<br /><br />
O’Neill and her co-authors found that those more engaging frames are rarely used, however.<br /><br />
“While we currently see much of the ‘duelling experts’ of the uncertain science frame, or the dramatic visual imagery of the disaster frame, is there potential for other engaging stories? We suggest that there may be newsworthy material discussing climate change in terms of future energy provision, diet and climate, or cities and health,” O’Neill says.<br /><br />
This matters because the way the media chooses to cover an issue can shape the way people respond to it in profound ways. Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, <a href="http://www.climatecentral.org/news/media-hope-gap-on-climate-change-18822" target="_blank">told Climate Central</a> that he didn’t find the study’s results surprising (Leiserowitz was not involved in the study).<br /><br />
“We find in our audience research that even <a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/global-warmings-six-americas-perceptions-of-the-health-risks" target="_blank">the alarmed</a> [those most concerned about climate change] don’t really know what they can do individually, or what we can do collectively. We call this loosely ‘the hope gap,’ and it’s a serious problem. Perceived threat without efficacy of response is usually a recipe for disengagement or fatalism.”<br /><br />
The report recommends that the <span class="caps">IPCC</span> pay closer attention to release dates and how those fit in with news cycles to maximize coverage in the media. But O’Neill says there’s a lot more the <span class="caps">IPCC</span> could be doing to more effectively communicate climate science to the masses and policymakers.<br /><br />
“Other authors in our Nature Climate Change Focus Issue argue for the <span class="caps">IPCC</span> to be more effective users of social media, and for the Summary for Policymakers to be re-designed to meet the needs of its target audiences – and we agree with much of what they say in these commentaries.”<br /> </p>
<p style="font-size:10px"><em>Image Credit: <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-257412721/stock-photo-press-and-media-camera-video-photographer-on-duty-in-public-news-coverage-event-for-reporter-and.html?src=HzOtBv9oOvn7nQlefZWtwA-1-44" target="_blank">stockphoto mania / Shutterstock.com</a></em></p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '9299';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=9299"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/20318">University of Exeter</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/climate-science">climate science</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5157">media</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/20319">media frames</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/20320">media coverage</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/676">IPCC</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/834">intergovernmental panel on climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/20321">Fifth Assessment Report</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/20322">AR5</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/893">us</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/uk">UK</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1503">united states</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11799">climate action</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5693">Policy</a></div></div></div>Sun, 12 Apr 2015 12:58:00 +0000Mike Gaworecki9299 at http://www.desmogblog.comClimate Scientist Andrew Weaver Wins $50,000 in Defamation Suit Against National Post, Terence Corcoranhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2015/02/06/climate-scientists-andrew-weaver-wins-50-000-defamation-suit-against-national-post-terence-corcoran
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/andrew%20weaver_0.jpg?itok=w-50jfIg" width="200" height="119" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The <span class="caps">B.C.</span> Supreme Court awarded $50,000 in damages to climate scientist Andrew Weaver in a <a href="http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/15/01/2015BCSC0165.htm">ruling</a> Friday that confirms articles published by the National Post defamed his character.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The ruling names Terence Corcoran, editor of the Financial Post, Peter Foster, a columnist at the National Post, Kevin Libin, a journalist that contributes to the Financial Post and National Post publisher Gordon Fisher.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Four articles published in 2009 and 2010 refer to Weaver, now <a href="http://www.andrewweavermla.ca/"><span class="caps">MLA</span> for Canada’s Green Party</a>, as an “alarmist” who disseminates “agit-prop” and a “sensationalist” that “cherry-picked” data as “Canada’s warmest spinner-in-chief.” Weaver was previously a lead author on a number of the <span class="caps">UN</span>'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (<span class="caps">IPCC</span>) assessment reports.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">In the damages section of the ruling (attached below), Madam Justice Emily Burke notes, “the defamation in this case was serious. It offended Dr. Weaver’s character and the defendants refused to publish a retraction.”</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Justice Burke concluded the defendants “have been careless or indifferent to the </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">accuracy of the facts,” adding, “they were more interested in espousing a particular view </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">than assessing the accuracy of the facts.”</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Weaver told DeSmog Canada he’s “thrilled” with the ruling.</span></p>
<!--break-->
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">“I am absolutely thrilled with today's <span class="caps">B.C.</span> Supreme Court judgment in my libel </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">case against the National Post, Terence Corcoran, Peter Foster, Kevin Libin </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">and Gordon Fisher.”</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Weaver said he initiated the lawsuit in 2010 when the National Post refused to retract the offending articles “that attributed to me statements I never made, accused me of things I never did, and attacked me for views I never held.”</span></p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>I felt I had to take this matter to court to clear my name and correct the public record. This judgment does precisely that.”</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Dr. <a href="http://pacinst.org/about-us/staff-and-board/dr-peter-h-gleick/">Peter Gleick</a>, president of the Pacific Institute and member of the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> National Academy of Sciences, said the ruling “is a victory for climate scientists everywhere.”</span></p>
<p>There is “an extremely long history of efforts by climate deniers and contrarians to attack not just climate science, but climate scientists: to smear their scientific reputations, to distort their statements, and to make false and defamatory accusations,” Gleick told DeSmog Canada.</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Gleick said defamation “has been a standard tactic for years, especially as the science of climate change has continued to strengthen and solidify.”</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The attack on Weaver’s credibility is unfortunately only one of many examples, he said.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span class="dquo">“</span>While I'm sure the ruling will not stop the continued assault on climate science and scientists, it should certainly put people on notice that there is a responsibility to avoid such irresponsible attacks and a real cost for failing to do so. I hope this ruling has that effect.”</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Weaver said he is looking forward to the defendants “publishing a complete retraction and removing the offending articles from electronic databases.”</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The four articles in question, as listed in the court ruling, can be seen below. Three of these <a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=1d0d5d49-fda6-441b-bdc9-c51313217bad">articles</a> <a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=90f8dd19-4a79-4f8f-ab42-b9655edc289b">still appear</a> on the <a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/much+pure+science/2513619/story.html">National Post’s website</a> at the time of publication.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><img alt="" src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Andrew%20Weaver%20defamation%20suit%20National%20Post.png" style="width: 640px; height: 484px;" /></span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">As part of his suit, Weaver also argued the National Post should take responsibility for the articles republished on third-party sites.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span class="dquo">“</span>I further look forward to them withdrawing consent given to third parties to re-publish the articles and to require them to cease re-publication,” Weaver said.</span></p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '9066';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=9066"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-upload field-type-file field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><table class="sticky-enabled">
<thead><tr><th>Attachment</th><th>Size</th> </tr></thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd"><td><span class="file"><img class="file-icon" alt="" title="application/pdf" src="/modules/file/icons/application-pdf.png" /> <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Judge%20Burke%2C%20re%20Weaver%20v.%20Corcoran%2C%2002-05.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=740922">Judge Burke, re Weaver v. Corcoran, 02-05.pdf</a></span></td><td>723.56 KB</td> </tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/climate-science">climate science</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/andrew-weaver">andrew weaver</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/national-post">national post</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/633">Terence Corcoran</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2770">Peter Foster</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4981">Kevin Libin</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2554">Gordon Fisher</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5017">Peter Gleick</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5938">Attack</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13390">defamation</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/libel">libel</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/19683">suit</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/18247">B.C. Supreme Court</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2400">climate deniers</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/19684">smear</a></div></div></div>Fri, 06 Feb 2015 21:03:05 +0000Carol Linnitt9066 at http://www.desmogblog.comStudy Dismisses Geoengineering Quick Fix For Global Warminghttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/06/07/study-dismisses-geoengineering-quick-fix-global-warming
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/10645181513_ff6b9ae064_b_0.jpg?itok=hV0qh8Ll" width="200" height="134" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Politicians should not look to science and engineering for a relatively quick fix to effectively deal with climate change caused by rising greenhouse gas emissions, a new academic study has determined.</p>
<p>The only solution to global warming is a massive rejection of toxic fossil fuels, vastly improved energy efficiency and substantially altered human behavior, found the recently released study — <a href="http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/130030">An interdisciplinary assessment of climate engineering strategies</a>.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>In light of their limitations and risks, climate engineering approaches would best serve as a complement to — rather than replacement for — abatement, and the latter should remain a focus of climate-change policy for the foreseeable future,” said the study written by six academics in the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> and Canada.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>Jonn Axsen, an assistant professor at Simon Fraser University’s School of Resource and Environmental Management, said in an interview Thursday that politicians need to get serious about making a relatively rapid transition away from the fossil fuels that are warming our atmosphere.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>We have to really start that transition now,” said Axsen, who along with five other academics spent two years analyzing more than 100 peer-reviewed studies dealing with the implications of various geo-engineering technologies and their effects on carbon emissions.</p>
<p>Their study has been published in the June edition of <a href="http://www.frontiersinecology.org/front/">Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment</a>. Simon Fraser University issued a <a href="http://www.sfu.ca/pamr/media-releases/2014/climate-engineering-cant-erase-climate-change.html">media release</a> about the study earlier this week explaining that the new study is the first scholarly attempt to rank a wide range of approaches to minimizing climate change in terms of their feasibility, cost-effectiveness, risk, public acceptance, governability and ethics.</p>
<p>The new research found that some geo-engineering technologies — such as improved forest and soil management — can work to help reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and that carbon capture and storage, also known as <span class="caps">CCS</span>, shows some promise too.</p>
<p>But other technologies, such as fertilizing the ocean with iron to absorb <span class="caps">CO</span>2 and employing solar radiation management by injecting particles directly into the atmosphere to block sunshine, are likely doomed to failure. </p>
<p>Only abatement will give humankind a chance to avoid the worst implications of climate change, the study added. “We conclude that although abatement should remain the central climate-change response, some low-risk, cost-effective climate engineering approaches should be applied as complements.”</p>
<p>Axsen said it is up to politicians to be clear about their intentions, if any, on dealing with climate change so that the electorate can make a decision on who to vote for at the polling booth.</p>
<p>He said the Canadian government through its support of the Alberta tar sands and the <span class="caps">B.C.</span> provincial government with its ambitious plans for a liquefied natural gas industry have demonstrated a lack of action on climate change because they have been relying on technological solutions rather than quickly embracing the needed transition to a low-carbon future.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>I think the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> is doing a better job in taking climate change seriously,” Axsen said, referring to a recent <a href="http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/5bb6d20668b9a18485257ceb00490c98!OpenDocument">plan</a> by the Obama administration that would see a 30 per cent drop in coal-fired electricity plant emissions below 2005 levels by 2030. He also said California is a good example of a state government aggressively fighting climate change.</p>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>We know what policies would work,” he said. “It’s just a matter of having the political will and leadership.”</p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '8207';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=8207"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4229">geoengineering</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/16843">jonn axsen</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/climate-science">climate science</a></div></div></div>Sat, 07 Jun 2014 13:00:00 +0000Chris Rose8207 at http://www.desmogblog.comAAAS "What We Know" Initiative: Same Denial, Different Issue - From Ozone Depletion to Climate Changehttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/03/19/aaas-what-we-know-initiative-same-denial-different-issue-ozone-depletion-climate-change
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Screen%20Shot%202014-03-19%20at%201.22.14%20PM.png?itok=w8U52dRq" width="200" height="105" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><em>This is a guest post by Cindy Baxter, <a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/blog/aaas-what-we-know-initiative-same-denial-different-issue-ozone-depletion-climate-change">cross-posted from PolluterWatch</a> with permission.</em></p>
<p>It must be like Groundhog Day for Mario Molina, the scientist who has presided over the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s new report and <a href="http://whatweknow.aaas.org/">publicity drive</a> aimed at convincing Americans about the urgency of what’s happening on climate change.</p>
<p>The normally reticent <span class="caps">AAAS</span> has taken a highly unusual step. There’s no new science in it. Instead, it summarizes “what we know” on climate science, highlighting the 97% consensus on the issue and calling for action. </p>
<p>Why did they do it? The <span class="caps">AAAS</span> says it’s becoming alarmed at the American public’s views on climate change, stating <a href="http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AAAS-What-We-Know.pdf">in the opening paragraphs</a>:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;"><span class="dquo">“</span>Surveys show that many Americans think climate change is still a topic of significant scientific disagreement. Thus, it is important and increasingly urgent for the public to know there is now a high degree of agreement among climate scientists that human-caused climate change is real.”</p>
<p>They’re right: the latest Gallup Poll published this month shows that climate change is <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx">low on Americans’ priority list</a>, with 51% saying they worry about climate change very little – or not at all. And 42% said they believe the seriousness of the issue was <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/167960/americans-likely-say-global-warming-exaggerated.aspx">“generally exaggerated.”</a></p>
<p>The <span class="caps">AAAS</span> report also stated: </p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;"><span class="dquo">“</span>It is not the purpose of this paper to explain why this disconnect between scientific knowledge and public perception has occurred.”</p>
<p>That’s not their job. But I bet they’d like to. Especially Mario Molina. </p>
<!--break-->
<p>The reason for that American disconnect between scientific and public views on global warming is simple: it’s the result of a 20-year campaign funded by the fossil fuel industry that profits from the very products causing it – oil, coal and gas. It’s got nothing to do with science per se.</p>
<p>A brief history of that campaign is outlined in a report I wrote last year: <a href="greenpeace.org/usa/dealingindoubt">“Dealing in Doubt”</a> that catalogues the attacks on climate science, the <span class="caps">IPCC</span> and on the scientists themselves.</p>
<p>But what’s that got to do with Mario Molina? Molina, now 70, was one of the researchers who discovered the chemistry around ozone depletion. He and two other scientists received the 1995 Nobel Prize for chemistry for their work. 20 years ago, he faced a remarkably similar campaign to what the climate scientists face today.</p>
<p>In 1992, Molina was at a gathering of scientists in Brazil, ahead of the Rio Earth Summit, and about to present a 30-minute talk on ozone depletion. He was dumbfounded when the presenter before him told the assembled scientists that the ozone depletion theory was a sham. He later told the <span class="caps">AAAS</span>’s <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/260/5114/1580.extract">Science magazine</a> (<a href="http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=download&amp;d=1840">full text here</a>):</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;"><span class="dquo">“</span>Given enough time I could have carefully rebutted his objections. They sounded reasonable but they were only pseudoscientific.”</p>
<p>At the time, in the face of increasing scientific certainty, there was a (successful) push to strengthen the Montreal Protocol, to further regulate <span class="caps">CFC</span>s to stop ozone depletion. The fight was on.</p>
<p>The Science article went on to outline how talk show host Rush Limbaugh was leading the charge against the ozone science, labeling the issue a “massive conspiracy” promulgated by “dunderhead alarmists and prophets of doom.” </p>
<p>Limbaugh claimed the only reason scientists were working on ozone depletion was because “they always want more funding, and today that means government funding. What could be more natural than for [<span class="caps">NASA</span>], with the space program winding down, to say that because we have this unusual amount of chlorine in the atmosphere, we need funding.”</p>
<p>This is one of the main mantras of the climate science deniers today – they’re only in it for the funding. They also get labeled “alarmists” and “doomsayers” amongst other things. Same arguments, different subject.</p>
<p>Enter S Fred Singer, a serial denier who cut his teeth on tobacco science, before moving on to ozone depletion and global warming. In <a href="http://archive.is/xwajR">a 1995 article</a>, he said this on ozone depletion:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;"><span class="dquo">“</span>The facts are that the scientific underpinnings are quite shaky: the data are suspect; the statistical analyses are faulty; and the theory has not been validated… The science simply does not support this premature and abrupt removal of widely used chemicals—at great cost to the economy.”</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">It’s telling that one of Singer’s early articles, “My adventures on the ozone layer,” can be found today on the </span><a href="https://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/5001.pdf" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Heartland Institute website.</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> This is the same Heartland Institute that last year employed Singer to help work on its “<span class="caps">NIPCC</span>” report, designed to confuse a casual observer with the similarity to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (<span class="caps">IPCC</span>) while using debunked arguments to suggest there isn’t a problem – which couldn’t be farther from the truth. </span></p>
<p>In 1996, Singer <a href="http://archive.is/iCa5N">told a House Committee</a> there was no scientific consensus on ozone depletion. He went on to use the high-cost argument, and brought in a new theme that is very much prevalent in today’s anti climate arguments: that it would hurt the developing world.</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;"><span class="dquo">“</span>We are flying blind on this issue, at a huge cost to the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> economy and ultimately to every American household. In less developed countries, absence of low-cost refrigeration–for food preservation and vaccines–could, unfortunately, exact an even higher price in human lives.”</p>
<p>Two years later, Singer was even advocating putting mirrors in the sky to stop ozone depletion. That article can be found on <a href="http://cei.org/studies-issue-analysis/mitigation-climate-change-scientific-appraisal">another think tank website,</a> the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/competitive-enterprise-institute">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a>. The <span class="caps">CEI</span> set up the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cooler_Heads_Coalition">Cooler Heads Coalition</a>. But its extensive ExxonMobil funding was dropped in 2007 because the company said their campaign “<a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/Dealing-in-Doubt---the-Climate-Denial-Machine-vs-Climate-Science/Dealing-in-Doubt-The-1990s-a-network-of-denial-is-created/#a0">diverted attention”</a> from a real conversation about how to tackle climate change.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, over at the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/george-c-marshall-institute">Marshall Institute</a>, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/frederick-seitz">Fred Seitz</a> and <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/sallie-baliunas">Sallie Baliunas</a> had also picked up the cause, with <a href="http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/articles_optional/Baliunas94_ozone.pdf">Baliunas arguing</a> that it was the sun and other natural factors causing the problem:</p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in;"><span class="dquo">“</span>Scientific findings do not support an immediate ban on <span class="caps">CFC</span>’s. Both global and Arctic measurements point to natural factors as the main cause of recent ozone fluctuations. Ozone levels change primarily as the result of natural factors such as the ultraviolet output of the sun, oscillation of upper stratosphere winds and El Nino conditions.”</p>
<p>Sunspots is one of the main denialist arguments used against global warming today, notably by Baliunas’s colleague, <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/11/05/harvard-smithsonian-global-warming-skeptic-helps-feed-strategy-doubt-gridlock-congress/uHssYO1anoWSiLw0v1YcUJ/story.html">Willie Soon</a>. A later Marshall Institute report about global warming, ozone depletion and tobacco science was picked up and <a href="http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yzb65e00/pdf">pushed by Phillip Morris</a>.</p>
<p>No consensus, science unsettled, the sun, El Nino, in it for the funding, doomsayers, solutions will hurt the poor, natural variations: all these arguments are run today around global warming science by, amongst others, the Heartland Institute, the <span class="caps">CEI</span>, the Marshall Institute, S Fred Singer, Baliunas, Limbaugh and others.</p>
<p>The late Steve Schneider described the problem as being “caught between the exaggerations of the advocates, the exploitations of political interests, the media's penchant to turn everything into a boxing match and your own colleagues saying we should be above this dirty business and stick to the bench.”</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">AAAS</span> appears to have gotten off of that bench, not least because they’re worried about Americans sleepwalking into climate chaos, cheered on by industry. </p>
<p>But the bottom line, as the <span class="caps">AAAS</span> has stated in no uncertain terms, is this: “human-caused climate change is happening, we face risks of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes, and responding now will lower the risk and cost of taking action.”</p>
<p>Perhaps our elected leaders might also like to spend some time reading it.</p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '7936';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=7936"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/914">american association for the advancement of science</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1750">aaas</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/climate-science">climate science</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5040">Mario Molina</a></div></div></div>Wed, 19 Mar 2014 20:19:17 +0000Guest7936 at http://www.desmogblog.comAustralia Appoints Climate Science Denier As Top New York Officialhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/13/australia-appoints-climate-science-denier-top-new-york-diplomat
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/minchin.jpg?itok=PJ5xXFo2" width="189" height="238" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span class="caps">ONE</span> block east of Grand Central station, in a skyscraper on 42<sup>nd</sup> St, is the office of Australia’s Consul-General.</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">It’s a high profile diplomatic role and one that gives business leaders, thinkers and politicians the chance to see what drives the Australian Government of the day.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">In April, Australia will have a new Consul-General taking up that seat on New York's 42</span><sup style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">nd</sup><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> Street.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Seemingly in lock-step with the </span><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/10/09/australia-s-new-prime-minister-surrounded-climate-science-denying-voices-and-advisors" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">prevailing views of the conservative government in Australia</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">, that man will be <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/nick-minchin">Nick Minchin</a> — a rusted-on denier of the science of human-caused climate change and power broker in the country’s Liberal (that’s conservative) Party.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Minchin has claimed the “extreme Left” has used environmentalism as a way to try and “de-industrialise” the western world. He thinks human-caused climate change is a scare story.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Minchin’s appointment was </span><a href="http://foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2014/jb_mr_140214.html" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">announced by Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">, who said the consulate role was “high profile” and that it could be used to “influence perceptions of Australia” in the city.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">She said Minchin’s role would be to influence “key individuals and companies across a range of sectors particularly business and politics.”</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Things could get a little awkward if talk at those business and political lunches turns to climate change — which it surely will in a city acutely aware of its susceptibility to climate change impacts.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">In April 2012, Minchin ridiculed the notion that human-caused climate change was a risk, </span><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/they-tried-to-change-my-mind-but-im-still-a-climate-sceptic-20120426-1xnxp.html" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">writing in a column</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> that “despite the hype” the ice at the world’s poles was not melting and that “our cities aren’t being submerged.”</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Six months later, New York was submerged by the storm surge from ex-cyclone Sandy. </span></p>
<!--break-->
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">In the wake of the storm, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo </span><a href="http://gotham-magazine.com/personalities/articles/exclusive-rachel-maddow-interviews-governor-andrew-cuomo-on-superstorm-sandy" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">described climate change</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> as a “new threat” which should force people to “look at the world differently.” </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Cuomo told journalist Rachel Maddow:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p>This is climate change. And it’s not a political concept; it’s a practical concept. It’s not debatable and not ideological or philosophical; it is reality-based. Changing weather patterns create real, practical issues for the world. Let’s build an awareness, a consensus, and let’s educate and mobilize the body politic around it. When do politicians succeed in bringing change?</p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Most </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/nyregion/most-new-yorkers-tie-hurricane-sandy-to-climate-change-poll-finds.html" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">New Yorkers saw the storm as a sure sign of climate change</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">. </span><a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rising-seas-threatening-new-york-experts-warn-article-1.1437794" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">New Yorkers are also acutely aware</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> of how exposed their low-lying Manhattan centre is to sea level rises and severe storm surges.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The new Consul-General, a former government minister, might also have a job convincing the New York Times that climate change is just a scary story. The paper’s editorials repeatedly warn of the risks of climate change.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Most recently, </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/22/opinion/backsliding-on-the-climate.html?ref=editorials" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">the paper’s editorial board said</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> there would be “devastating climate-change consequences” unless there were “aggressive moves” to cut greenhouse gas emissions.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Minchin himself has fought hard for the opposite. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">When the Liberal Party was in opposition, Minchin played a key role in unseating leader Malcolm Turnbull and replacing him with Tony Abbott, now the country’s Prime Minsiter.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Turnbull wanted to support an emissions trading scheme, but Abbott — who once described the science of climate change as “<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2808321.htm">absolute crap</a>” — did not. Abbott, backed by Minchin, won, </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 13px;">but has since claimed he accepts the science</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em; font-size: 13px;">.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">In an interview with the <span class="caps">ABC</span>’s flagship </span><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2009/s2737676.htm" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">Four Corners</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> investigative journalism television show in 2009, Nick Minchin named Australian climate science deniers Bob Carter and Ian Plimer as two “scientists” he thought were credible on climate science.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Carter, who has only ever written one peer reviewed scientific paper on climate change (which was later debunked), is on the payroll of the notorious <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute">Heartland Institute</a> free market “think tank.”</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Plimer, who has never written a peer reviewed scientific paper on climate change, now spends much of his time as a director of several mining companies, including two controlled by one of the world’s richest women, Gina Rinehart. One company is oil and gas firm <a href="http://www.sunres.com.au/irm/content/board-of-directors-and-management.aspx?RID=251" target="_blank">Sun Resources</a>, where Plimer is chairman on a board that includes another former Howard Government Minister and Minchin contemporary, Alexander Downer.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Minchin told the <span class="caps">ABC</span> he did not accept that carbon dioxide was the main driver of climate change. He said:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p>I frankly strongly object to you know, politicians and others trying to terrify 12 year old girls that their planet's about to melt, you know. I mean really it is appalling some of that sort of behaviour.</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span class="dquo">“</span>For the extreme left it provides the opportunity to do what they've always wanted to do, to sort of de-industrialise the western world. You know the collapse of communism was a disaster for the left, and the, and really they embraced environmentalism as their new religion.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Minchin also appeared on a </span><a href="http://www.readfearn.com/2012/04/i-can-change-your-mind-about/" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">contrived <span class="caps">ABC</span> documentary</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> on climate change in 2012.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The show — </span><a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/changeyourmind/" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">I Can Change Your Mind About Climate Change</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> — took a climate science denier and a climate advocate around the world. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The two participants, Nick Minchin and Australian climate change campaigner Anna Rose, took each other to meet people they thought would help change their opponents’ mind.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">In a segment not aired on the show, Minchin was taken to meet Naomi Oreskes, a science history professor at <span class="caps">UC</span> San Diego and co-author of the book </span><em style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Merchants of Doubt: How A Handful of scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.</em></p>
<p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/7ZQNiDIBxO4?rel=0" width="560"></iframe></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Oreskes warned Minchin that he was basing his decision on “bad information” and said that while many conservatives feared regulating greenhouse gas emissions amounted to an unwelcome government intrusion, avoiding taking action actually made those fears far more likely to come true.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Minchin’s “expert” choices included <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano">Marc Morano</a>, the communications director for the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/committee-constructive-tomorrow">Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (<span class="caps">CFACT</span>)</a> and former advisor to Republican Senator James Inhofe, who says global warming is the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span class="caps">CFACT</span> has accepted at least $4 million from <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/who-donors-trust">Donors Trust</a> – a fund that spends cash on behalf of rich conservative millionaires while keeping their identities a secret. <span class="caps">CFACT</span> has also accepted cash from fossil fuel interests, including $500,000 from Exxon.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Morano </span><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/11/19/climate-denial-group-cfact-congratulates-australia-during-warsaw-cop19-talks" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">told the recent United Nations climate talks in Warsaw</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> that coal was the “moral choice” for the developing world.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">A relative of the new Consul-General is the comedian Tim Minchin, one of Australia’s most famous exports. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">When the younger Minchin accepted an honorary doctorate last year from the University of Western Australia, he had </span><a href="http://www.readfearn.com/2013/10/tim-minchin-on-climate-change-denial-and-tony-abbott/" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">a few choice words</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> to say about his senior cousin.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span class="dquo">“</span>The idea that many Australians – including our new <span class="caps">PM</span> and my distant cousin Nick Minchin – believe that the science of anthropogenic global is controversial, is a powerful indicator of the extent of our failure to communicate.”</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">In a city where the fear of human-caused climate change is real, it seems appointing a climate science denier to a key diplomatic position is another “powerful indicator” of the Australian Government’s unedifying position.</span></p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '7850';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=7850"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15328">nick minchin</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1196">marc morano</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/700">CFACT</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/climate-science">climate science</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/15329">new york consul general</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/911">new york</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/622">bob carter</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/821">Heartland Institute</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/965">ian plimer</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3062">climate denial</a></div></div></div>Fri, 14 Feb 2014 01:23:32 +0000Graham Readfearn7850 at http://www.desmogblog.comCoal Industry Report On Social Cost Of Carbon Relies On Climate Science Denialhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/06/coal-industry-report-social-cost-carbon-relies-climate-science-denial
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Fiore_Clean_Coal_0.jpg?itok=fQBPlyUl" width="200" height="149" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>The <a href="http://www.cleancoalusa.org/" target="_blank">American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity</a> (<span class="caps">ACCCE</span>) seems a confusing and confused organisation of <a href="http://www.cleancoalusa.org/about-us/members" target="_blank">major coal miners and burners</a> - even if you only consider its oxymoronic title.</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">When the industry group was </span><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/same-front-group-different-day" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">launched in 2008</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">, the message was that coal — the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning globally — could be part of the future.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span class="dquo">“</span>I believe we can limit greenhouse gases,” declared one of the wholesome American citizens depicted in the <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> television adverts.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">One can only presume that the <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> has now dropped its hopes of limiting greenhouse gases, given that its latest “</span><a href="http://www.americaspower.org/landmark-report-calculates-societal-benefits-fossil-energy-be-least-50-times-greater-perceived-costs" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">landmark report</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">” claims the benefits to society of putting extra carbon dioxide into the atmosphere massively outweigh the costs. Surely the message should be, “burn baby, burn”?</span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.americaspower.org/sites/default/files/Social-Benefits-of-Carbon.pdf" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">The Social Costs Of Carbon? No, The Social Benefits Of Carbon</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> report by <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> claims the benefits of adding extra <span class="caps">CO</span>2 to the atmosphere are between 50 and 500 times higher than the costs.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">But the report attacks climate change science using sources as ideologically tainted as the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute">Heartland Institute</a> – an organisation which once </span><a href="http://desmogblog.com/heartland-billboard-most-prominent-advocates-global-warming-aren-t-scientists-they-are-murderers-tyrants-and-madmen" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">ran a billboard campaign</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> with a picture of Unabomber Ted Kaczynski to claim that the “most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.”</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">At its core, the <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report is one long misrepresentation of the impact of coal on the planet, from its effects on growing food crops to raising sea levels to fuelling risk-laden climate change.</span></p>
<!--break-->
<h4>
Carbon Dioxide as “food for plants”</h4>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">One of the most popular debating points for <a href="http://desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database">climate science deniers</a> is to tell you that carbon dioxide is simply food for plants.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report takes this well worn and simplistic climate science denial talking point and pushes it to its extreme. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">While it’s true that some plants generally grow quicker when more carbon dioxide is available, this is grossly simplistic and ignores the impacts of human-caused climate change on flooding and prolonged drought.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">According to <span class="caps">ACCCE</span>, “the more <span class="caps">CO</span>2 there is in the air, the better plants grow” and that adding more <span class="caps">CO</span>2 to the atmosphere will only have positive benefits.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Professor Arnold Bloom, of the Department of Plant Sciences at the University of California at Davis, told DeSmogBlog:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p>The coal industry in the United States has repeatedly tried to make such claims, but the short-term stimulation of plant productivity and crop yields at elevated <span class="caps">CO</span>2 diminishes with longer exposures (weeks, months, years), a phenomenon known as <span class="caps">CO</span>2 acclimation. Moreover, longer exposures to elevated <span class="caps">CO</span>2 decrease food quality and increase pest problems because pests must consume more plant product to meet their nutritional needs. I have discovered that elevated <span class="caps">CO</span>2 inhibits the conversion of nitrate into protein in most plants.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Several passages of the section of <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report on plant growth are near identical to text from </span><a href="http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">a report produced by Craig Idso</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">, of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Internal documents from the Heartland Institute have revealed that </span><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/craig-idso" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Craig Idso</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> receives $11,600 a month from the climate denial group.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Idso is also a former director at Peabody Energy — one of the world’s biggest coal companies and a member of the <span class="caps">ACCCE</span>.</span></p>
<h4>
Social Cost of Carbon</h4>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The report takes time to sully the concept of Integrated Assessment Models (<span class="caps">IAM</span>s) that are a method used to work out how much each tonne of carbon dioxide costs society. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">This is known as the social cost of carbon (<span class="caps">SCC</span>) and the </span><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/11/01/refining-estimates-social-cost-carbon" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank"><span class="caps">US</span> administration currently has the figure</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> at about $37 per metric tonne.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report heavily cites the work of Robert Pindyck, a Professor at the Massachusets Institute of Technology’s Sloan School of Management.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Pindyck has been critical of <span class="caps">IAM</span>s and the <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report quotes a </span><a href="http://web.mit.edu/rpindyck/www/Papers/Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">working paper produced last year</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> where he described <span class="caps">IAM</span>s as being “close to useless” as a tool for policy analysis. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">However, the <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report did not choose to cite the very first sentence of Pindyck’s paper, which said:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is almost no disagreement among economists that the full cost to society of burning a ton of carbon is greater than its private cost<em>.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Nor did the coal group’s report cite another concern Pindyck has with the use of <span class="caps">IAM</span>s, which was also outlined in the abstract of the report, and said:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p>…the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the <span class="caps">SCC</span>, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Also cited in the report’s section looking at <span class="caps">IAM</span>s is James Risbey, a climatologist now at Australia’s government-funded science agency the <span class="caps">CSIRO</span>. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The coal report cites a scientific paper written by Risbey 18 years ago and which warned that the use of <span class="caps">IAM</span>s came with several pitfalls. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">After viewing the coal report, Risbey told me:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report questions a number of issues as if they were in dispute or subject to major uncertainties that have been resolved for decades. The report appears to question the relative roles of natural and anthropogenic emissions in driving climate change. It has long been known that anthropogenic emissions are driving the increase in <span class="caps">CO</span>2 concentration. </span></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>The <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report appears to question whether greenhouse climate change will cause damages. The methods of accounting and costing damages from climate change have been contentious and often questioned. Much of that questioning has been based on a concern that the way damages are represented is too simple, leading to damage assessments that could grossly under-represent the true damages. The uncertainties relate to the scale of the damages, not to the very likelihood of them happening as implied in the report.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, two key sources used by <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> in its criticisms of <span class="caps">IAM</span>s seem in reality to disagree with the key message of the report.&gt;</p>
<h4>
Sea Level Rise</h4>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> paper claims that future damages caused by rising sea levels based on predictions from computer models “must be considered inflated and unreliable.” </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The paper also claims that there has been no recent acceleration in sea level rise and that real world observations are showing a slowdown.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Australia-based Dr John Hunter, of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, has published extensively on sea level rise in leading peer-reviewed journals. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">After reviewing the <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report on sea level rise, Dr Hunter told DeSmogBlog:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">If this was a review of the literature written by a student, then it would get a very poor fail - it ignores most of the scientific work that has been done, and instead relies on relatively obscure and carefully selected papers from a small number of authors.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">One of those authors is an Australia-based engineer called Alberto Boretti, who recently changed his name to Albert Parker. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Dr Parker works on “green engines” at <span class="caps">RMIT</span> University in Melbourne. He is a member of a group known as <a href="http://www.principia-scientific.org/About/why-psi-is-proposed-as-a-cic.html" target="_blank">Principia Scientific International</a> whose head claims carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas and cannot warm the planet. <span class="caps">PSI</span> is on the very fringes of the climate science denial fringe.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Dr Parker has published several papers with another Australian, Thomas Watson, </span><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/04/28/ufos-sea-level-rise-and-magnetism-climate-science-denial" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">who believes <span class="caps">CO</span>2 cannot cause climate change</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> and instead has blamed “magnetism” – a theory sparked in Watson’s mind after seeing a <span class="caps">UFO</span> while backstage at a rock concert.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">A claim in the <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> report that “observations reveal no acceleration of sea level rise over the past century” was, Hunter told DeSmogBlog, “both misleading and largely irrelevant.”</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">He said observations of global sea levels were actually in line with the predictions of climate models. Dr Hunter said:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The authors provide no quantitative estimate of what the acceleration “should” be if sea level were actually rising according to “<span class="caps">AGW</span> theory”. The real test of the models is whether they reproduce observed sea level, and over the past half-century (when we have good observational data), they do appear to. The models in fact show that the present acceleration should be small.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<h5>
<strong>A belief in themselves</strong></h5>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">With reports like this, the coal industry in the <span class="caps">US</span> and <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/30/australian-report-trumpeted-coal-bosses-does-not-say-what-they-want-you-think-it-says" target="_blank">Australia</a> seems desperate to convince policy makers and the public that its position as the historically dominant source of the world’s electricity should continue.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Yet an increasing number of global investors with an influence over billions of dollars in funds – including the World Bank – disagree.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span class="dquo">“</span>I believe in the future,” said <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> in its original 2008 television advertisements.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The self-interested <span class="caps">ACCCE</span> does not appear to believe in an honest appraisal of the science of climate change and seems happy to rely on denial, at the expense of society at large.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:10px;"><em>Image credit: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLZ-hvVVGmY">Mark Fiore</a></em></span></p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '7829';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=7829"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2931">ACCCE</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/662">coal</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4149">Craig Idso</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12502">alberto boretti</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12503">albert parker</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2207">sea level rise</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2930">American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/peabody-energy">Peabody Energy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6467">Peabody</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2540">desmogblog</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12498">thomas watson</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/climate-science">climate science</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3062">climate denial</a></div></div></div>Fri, 07 Feb 2014 03:34:01 +0000Graham Readfearn7829 at http://www.desmogblog.comZoologist Matt Ridley Should Stick to Animals Instead of Butchering Climate Sciencehttp://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/17/zoologist-matt-ridley-should-stick-animals-instead-butchering-climate-science
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Matt%20Ridley.jpg?itok=U6Szfnp6" width="200" height="239" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><strong>Since when is <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/matt-ridley">zoologist Matt Ridley</a> an expert on climate change science? </strong></p>
<p>Yes, I get it. The state of science versus opinion is at an all-time low in human history, with perhaps the Dark Ages the only exception.</p>
<p>There is currently a “debate” being led by Matt Ridley (you can <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/matt-ridley">read all about Ridley's complete lack of credentials in the field of climate science here</a>) brewing in the right wing press about a possible <a href="http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/15/climate-agency-accused-of-cooling-on-global-warming-as-new-report-lowers-predicted-temperature-increase/">“subtle drop”</a> in the low end prediction of how fast global warming is occurring. Ridley's quibbling comes, not coincidentally, less than two weeks before the release of the latest report from the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (<span class="caps">IPCC</span>)</a>, a favorite whipping post of the climate denier echo chamber. </p>
<p>Ridley and his pals at the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-policy-foundation" style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em; color: rgb(255, 205, 51); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Global Warming Policy Foundation</a> have taken to the airwaves and the right-wing tabloids ahead of the official <span class="caps">IPCC</span> release date to try and pre-emptively discredit the <span class="caps">IPCC</span>'s conclusions. It is a classic political move to get out first and fast before your opponents have a chance to tell their side of the story.<br /><br />
What they want to do (again) is create the appearance of controversy and debate to generate headlines and the perception that climate change science is not as solid as scientists say it is. <a href="http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/332506.html">Doubt is their product</a>.</p>
<p>Hopefully the mainstream media will look past <span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">the thin veneer of credibility of Matt </span><span style="font-size: 13px; letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Ridley and the Global Warming Policy Foundation, and instead speak to actual climate scientists instead of an expert on animals. The issue of climate change and the state of the science is too important to leave to rookies. </span></p>
<!--break-->
<p>As for what is actually contained in the <span class="caps">IPCC</span> report, as one real live and trained climate scientist, Dr. Andrew Weaver, told the <a href="http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/15/climate-agency-accused-of-cooling-on-global-warming-as-new-report-lowers-predicted-temperature-increase/">National Post</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><span class="dquo">“</span>What we’ve learned since 2007 is not a lot of new stuff. It’s basically underscoring with greater certainty what we’ve already said. To capture it in a sound bite, it’s essentially more of the same, with a little more certainty…. Scientists have done their job. Now it’s time for policymakers and politicians to do theirs if we as a society want to deal with this problem. Here we are, in 2013, with another massive report. It’s just saying the same thing.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, the news is just as bad as it was the last time the <span class="caps">IPCC</span> issued a report, no matter how many amateur experts want us to think differently. </p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '7473';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=7473"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11699">Matt Ridley</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4768">global warming policy foundation</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11724">IPCC report</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/climate-science">climate science</a></div></div></div>Tue, 17 Sep 2013 18:22:03 +0000Kevin Grandia7473 at http://www.desmogblog.comDealing in Doubt: Greenpeace Report Exposes Fossil Fuel Funded Climate Denial Machinehttp://www.desmogblog.com/2013/09/10/dealing-in-doubt-greenpeace-exposes-fossil-fuel-funded-climate-denial-machine
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/shutterstock_103870181.jpg?itok=Uort48Gl" width="200" height="131" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change prepares to release its <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml#.Ui5q5WRgaIk">Fifth Assessment Report (<span class="caps">AR</span>5)</a> – the latest installment of its comprehensive assessment of climate science – early next year, the science is <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/ipcc-fifth-assessment-report/">already under attack</a>. As the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> Global Change Research Program puts the final draft of the <a href="http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment">third National Climate Assessment</a> together, also due out in early 2014, its conclusions are already under siege.</span></p>
<p>In an <a href="http://greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/Dealing-in-Doubt---the-Climate-Denial-Machine-vs-Climate-Science/">updated report released today</a>, Greenpeace explains how these attacks on the science of climate change – on the reports, on the scientists themselves, and on the rigorous scientific process itself – are part of a decades-old, well-organized, and richly-funded campaign to discredit the science of climate change and to intentionally pollute public discourse on climate change.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/Dealing-in-Doubt---the-Climate-Denial-Machine-vs-Climate-Science/">Dealing in Doubt: The Climate Denial Industry and Climate Science</a>, an update of their 2010 report, Greenpeace exhaustively describes the fossil fuel funded climate denial machine, tracing its Exxon-funded, tobacco industry-inspired roots in the 1990s to the intricate and secretive web of disinformation that exists today. </p>
<!--break-->
<p>Three years ago, Jim Hoggan wrote about the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/greenpeace-releases-20-year-history-climate-denial-industry">first release of Dealing in Doubt here on DeSmogBlog</a>: “The new report succinctly explains how fossil fuel interests used the tobacco industry’s playbook and an extensive arsenal of lobbyists and “experts” for hire in order to manufacture disinformation designed to confuse the public and stifle action to address climate change.”</p>
<p><img alt="" src="/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/denier%20funding%20map.jpg" style="width: 560px; height: 580px;" /></p>
<h6>
<em>This ExxonSecrets map helps illustrate the Dealing in Doubt section on how ExxonMobil’s money funds front groups that pay for “experts” to confuse the public on climate change.</em></h6>
<p><br />
The new edition updates that original content – the Koch Brothers, for instance, weren’t a household name in early 2010, nor was their integral involvement in climate denial then well understood – and adds new sections and case studies to the already thorough evaluation. According to the report’s introduction:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>With this new edition of Dealing In Doubt we:</p>
<ul><li>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">detail the ongoing attempts to attack the integrity of individual climate scientists and their work.</span></li>
<li>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">look beyond the strategic parallels between the tobacco industry’s campaign for “Sound Science” (where they labeled mainstream science as “junk”) to the current climate denial campaign, to new research that has come to light revealing the deeper connections: the funding, personnel and institutions between the two policy fights.</span></span></li>
<li>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">detail how some scientists are now fighting back and taking legal action.</span></span></span></li>
<li>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">showcase the Heartland Institute as an example of how tobacco-friendly free market think tanks use a wide range of tactics to wage a campaign against the climate science.</span></span></span></span></li>
<li>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">reveal the range of tricks used by the denier campaign, from “pal review” instead of peer review, to personal attacks on scientists through Freedom of Information requests, self-publishing books, and the general conspiratorial noise from the denial machine in the blogosphere. </span></span></span></span></span></li>
</ul></blockquote>
<p>“Dealing in Doubt” saves its brightest spotlight for the “poster child” of the climate denial machine: the <a href="http://desmogblog.com/heartland-institute">Heartland Institute</a>. The free market think tank (they of the <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/corporate-exodus-heartland-institute-continues-usaa-and-insurers-bail">infamous Unabomber billboard</a>) pays “experts” (whose actual credentials never seem to align with the climate topics they bluster about) to get in front of cameras and spew pseudoscience to willfully confuse the public. They also publish the <a href="http://www.nipccreport.org/"><span class="caps">NIPCC</span></a>, an obvious affront to the <span class="caps">IPCC</span>'s report, and a new edition is due out next week. But that's just the tip of the iceberg regarding Heartland. <a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/Dealing-in-Doubt---the-Climate-Denial-Machine-vs-Climate-Science/Dealing-in-Doubt-Heartland-Institute-NIPCC-Climate-Change-Reconsidered-global-warming-denial/#a3">Greenpeace's report has a whole lot more detail</a>. </p>
<p>If you're a regular reader of DeSmogBlog, leafing through the report you'll see a lot of familiar names, as paid shill after paid shill is exposed: <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels">Patrick Micheals</a>, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon">Willie Soon</a>, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/sallie-baliunas">Sallie Baliunas</a>, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/david-legates">David Legates</a>, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer">Fred Singer</a>, <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/steve-milloy">Steve Milloy</a>. And the list goes on. </p>
<p>“Dealing in Doubt” pays special attention to attacks on the <span class="caps">IPCC</span> and how the Fifth Assessment Report is already being twisted to confuse the public. Take this account from a section subtitlted “The Cherry Picking Begins”:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The <span class="caps">IPCC</span> process requires that draft versions of the report are circulated to reviewers. These are clearly unfinished work product and not meant for distribution.</p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">In December 2012, the first of the denier leaks of the <span class="caps">AR</span>5 report was posted on the internet by a blogger. It was picked up by two mouthpieces of the denial machine, bloggers <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts">Anthony Watts</a> and <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/james-delingpole">James Delingpole</a>, who claimed one particular sentence was proof the <span class="caps">IPCC</span> had finally decided the sun was influencing global warming.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Blaming the sun is a favourite memes of denier arguments, fueled by astrophysicist Willie Soon, and one that has been thoroughly discounted. The <span class="caps">AR</span>5 leaked draft had itself discounted the notion, but the bloggers had cherrypicked to the extreme.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">In short, the deniers leaked half a paragraph and portrayed it as a new conclusion, completely ignoring the subsequent sentence that specifically ruled out their claim.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Scientist Steve Sherwood told DeSmogBlog:</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span class="dquo">“</span>The single sentence that this guy pulls out is simply paraphrasing an argument that has been put forward by a few controversial papers … purporting significant cosmic-ray influences on climate. Its existence in the draft is proof that we considered all peer-reviewed literature, including potentially important papers that deviate from the herd. The rest of the paragraph from which he has lifted this sentence, however, goes on to show that subsequent peer-reviewed literature has discredited the assumptions and/or methodology of those papers, and failed to find any effect.” </span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>There have been whole books published on the climate denial industry – check out <em><a href="http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/">Merchants of Doubt</a></em> by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway or <em><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-cover-up">Climate Cover Up</a></em> by our own James Hoggan – but if you’re looking for a quick yet comprehensive primer that’s up-to-the-minute in detail, you should download “<a href="http://greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/Dealing-in-Doubt---the-Climate-Denial-Machine-vs-Climate-Science/">Dealing in Doubt</a>” right away. <br /><br /><span style="font-size:9px;"><em>Image credit: <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&amp;search_source=search_form&amp;search_tracking_id=-NPaGrd9IppbfWPPHQ9eqQ&amp;version=llv1&amp;anyorall=all&amp;safesearch=1&amp;searchterm=pollution&amp;search_group=&amp;orient=&amp;search_cat=&amp;searchtermx=&amp;photographer_name=&amp;people_gender=&amp;people_age=&amp;people_ethnicity=&amp;people_number=&amp;commercial_ok=&amp;color=&amp;show_color_wheel=1#id=103870181&amp;src=p-127976606-4">child playing in river near industrial plant</a></em></span></p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '7454';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=7454"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/greenpeace">greenpeace</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13660">dealing in doubt</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/676">IPCC</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13661">us global change research program</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/climate-science">climate science</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3062">climate denial</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2236">deniers</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6861">AGW skeptic</a></div></div></div>Tue, 10 Sep 2013 13:00:00 +0000Ben Jervey7454 at http://www.desmogblog.comClimate Sceptic Professor Sacked From Australian University Was Banned By National Science Foundation For "Deceptive Conduct"http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/07/12/murry-salby-sacked-australian-university--banned-national-science-foundation
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/skeptic-guy.jpg?itok=oIECl7x3" width="200" height="151" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>A <span class="caps">CLIMATE</span> sceptic professor fired from his Australian university for alleged policy breaches had previously been banned for three years from accessing <span class="caps">US</span> taxpayer-funded science research money.</p>
<p>Dr Murry Salby, sacked in May by Macquarie University in Sydney, was the subject of a long investigation by the <span class="caps">US</span> National Science Foundation.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/I06090025.pdf">investigation</a> (pdf), which was finished in February 2009, concluded that over a period when Dr Salby was working at the University of Colorado, he had likely fabricated time sheets in relation to research paid for through <span class="caps">NSF</span> money.</p>
<blockquote>
We conclude that the Subject (Dr Salby) has engaged in a long-running course of deceptive conduct involving both his University and <span class="caps">NSF</span>. His conduct reflects a consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit. This supports a finding that the Subject is not presently responsible, and we recommend that he be debarred for five years.</blockquote>
<p>The <span class="caps">NSF</span> subsequently decided to only “debar” Dr Salby for three years, preventing him from accessing any <span class="caps">NSF</span> research grants or being involved in work related to them. The investigation was carried out by <span class="caps">NSF</span>’s <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/oig/">Office of Inspector General</a> - an arms-length organisation providing oversight to the <span class="caps">NSF</span>.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>In recent days, several commentators and bloggers have come out in support of Dr Salby, claiming his contrarian views on human-caused climate change had contributed to his dismissal from Macquarie University. Climate science denialist blogger <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/08/professor-critical-of-agw-theory-being-disenfranchised-exiled-from-academia-in-australia/">Anthony Watts</a> claimed Dr Salby’s dismissal illustrated the “disturbing lengths a university will go to suppress ideas they don’t agree with”.</p>
<p>News Ltd columnist <a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/sceptical_climate_scientist_punished_by_tim_flannerys_university/">Andrew Bolt</a>, a regular denier of the science of human-caused climate change, said Dr Salby had been “persecuted” because he had “challenged the global warming faith”.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mq.edu.au/newsroom/2013/07/10/statement-regarding-the-termination-of-professor-murry-salby/">Macquarie University released a statement</a>, saying that it had sacked Dr Salby for two reasons, neither of which related to his position on climate science. The statement said Dr Salby “did not fulfill his academic obligations, including the obligation to teach” and “his termination involved breaches of University policies in relation to travel and use of University resources.”</p>
<p>The university also said it had conducted two separate investigations into Dr Salby’s conduct before terminating his employment. <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/climate-chair-left-high-and-dry-by-uni/story-e6frgcjx-1226677907258">The Australian</a> newspaper carried a sympathetic account of Dr Salby’s sacking, reporting an email written by Dr Salby which had previously been published on several climate sceptic blogs.</p>
<p>In that email, Dr Salby claimed he had been poorly treated by the university and alleged the institution had denied him access to research funds he had been promised. He also claimed he had been left stranded at an airport in Paris after the university cancelled his return ticket. In the email, Dr Salby chose to point out how “Macquarie is a publically-funded enterprise. It holds a responsibility to act in the interests of the public.”</p>
<p>The <span class="caps">NSF</span> <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2009/oig0902/oig0902_4.pdf">reported in a bulletin</a> on the <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/I06090025.pdf">investigation</a> into Dr Salby:</p>
<blockquote>
Our investigation revealed that the subject (Dr Salby), consistently and over a period of many years, violated or disregarded various federal and <span class="caps">NSF</span> award administration requirements, violated university policies related to conflicts and outside compensation, and repeatedly misled both <span class="caps">NSF</span> and the university as to material facts about his outside companies and other matters relating to <span class="caps">NSF</span> awards.</blockquote>
<p>The <span class="caps">NSF</span> investigation into Dr Salby documented how two companies had been set up to administer grants and research he was conducting. At the time Dr Salby was at the University of Colorado, where he had worked as a professor from 1988 until his resignation in 2007. Dr Salby tried to sue the University of Colorado for constructive dismissal.</p>
<p>Court documents indicate the university placed restrictions on Dr Salby, preventing him access to documents and office space and prompting his resignation. The restrictions were imposed as a punishment resulting from Dr Salby’s alleged reluctance to correctly complete Conflict of Interest forms.</p>
<p>The investigation report found that “the total estimate of improperly collected indirect costs is $117,565.” The report added that payments to Dr Salby from a second company had been based on “fabricated time and effort reports”. The report also found that “the charges based on the reports may also be an unallowable cost in the total amount of $303,281”.</p>
<p>The investigation looked at Dr Salby’s involvement with two private companies and alleged he had misled his university and the <span class="caps">NSF</span> about the relationship between those two companies and his involvement with them. Dr Salby or his related companies had applied for funds through the <span class="caps">NSF</span> and the investigation alleged he had made an application to two different federal agencies for essentially the same work.</p>
<p>Dr Salby had previously denied this was the case, the report said, and he had argued the projects were different. In relation to these companies, the <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2009/oig0902/oig0902_4.pdf">investigation found</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
After many years of operation of the first company, the subject created a second, for-profit company that acted as a subcontractor to the first company. The subject was the sole owner and employee of the second company, which existed solely to receive grant funds from the first company and pay them to the subject as salary.</blockquote>
<p>In relation to the time sheets, a <a href="http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2009/oig0902/oig0902_4.pdf">report of the investigation</a> said:</p>
<blockquote>
When we asked him (Dr Salby) to supply supporting documentation for the salary payments, the subject provided timesheets reflecting highly implausible work hours—for example, the subject claimed effort averaging nearly 14 hours a day for 98 continuous days between May and August 2002 (including weekends and holidays), and in other instances claimed to have devoted as much as 21 hours per day to the project.</blockquote>
<p>The investigation made six findings against Dr Salby. Among these was that Dr Salby had “repeatedly made false and misleading statements to the University, and failed to abide by its established policies on conflicts of interest and financial disclosures.”</p>
<p>Dr Salby was appointed to his position at Macquarie University in 2008, several months before the final report of the <span class="caps">NSF</span> investigation.</p>
<p>The investigation report also details their attempts to get a response from Dr Salby to the final accusations. After couriering the report to Australia, leaving messages on his Macquarie University voicemail and sending emails to two different addresses, Dr Salby responded one month later.</p>
<p>Dr Salby then denied that a second company had been subcontracting to another, denied that the companies were accountable under <span class="caps">NSF</span> rules and also claimed that his timesheets were accurate. A letter to Dr Salby, attached to the investigation, outlined the wide-ranging restrictions relating to his “debarment period” when he would not be allowed to access <span class="caps">NSF</span> grants.</p>
<blockquote>
… you will be barred from having supervisory responsibility, primary management, substantive control over, or critical influence on, a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement with any agency of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.</blockquote>
<p>DeSmogBlog has approached Macquarie University for a response.</p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '7317';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=7317"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13162">murry salby</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13163">macquarie university</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/australia">Australia</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2934">University of Colorado</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7139">national science foundation</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/13164">nsf</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/climate-science">climate science</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div></div></div>Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:53:02 +0000Graham Readfearn7317 at http://www.desmogblog.comLord Monckton Threatens Climate Scientists, Againhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2013/03/02/lord-monckton-threatens-climate-scientists-again
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/monckton_5.jpg?itok=ftMNI7GI" width="200" height="133" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span class="caps">MEMBERS</span> of London's famous gentlemen's club Brooks's have no doubt cooked-up a few bizarre plots, plans and wagers over the years as Britain's gentry and ennobled upper class sipped on glasses of port in their smoking jackets.</p>
<p>In 1785, for example, there was an <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uariyzldrJwC&amp;pg=PA98&amp;lpg=PA98&amp;dq=Cholmondeley+Derby+balloon&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=W4dRegY2Ba&amp;sig=WZ82UXVdBg_MvRYzrtRz22MYm1M&amp;hl=en&amp;sa=X&amp;ei=7CIwUYZfpvCYBbWegdAH&amp;ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&amp;q=Cholmondeley%20Derby%20balloon&amp;f=false" target="_blank">agreement between two Lords</a> to hand over 500<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_(British_coin)" target="_blank"> guineas</a> if one of them managed to have sexual intercourse with a woman in a balloon “one thousand yards from the Earth” . There's no record to suggest that the arrangement, recorded in the club's Betting Book, was ever paid.</p>
<p>The exclusive men-only enclave lives on and still attracts high-profile figures, although Rupert Murdoch's son <a href="http://www.cityam.com/the-capitalist/harriet-dennys/james-murdoch-put-hold-exclusive-gentlemen-s-clique" target="_blank">James' application ran into trouble</a> over the News of the World phone hacking scandal. Club member and climate science denier Lord Christopher Monckton put Brooks's famous address to good use this week for a letter sent to the University of Tasmania.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>Lord Monckton is currently on a tour of Australia. One of his appearances was in a rented room at the University of Tasmania (<span class="caps">UTAS</span>) where he told the audience that global warming has stopped - <a href="http://theconversation.edu.au/fact-check-has-global-warming-paused-12439" target="_blank">which it hasn't</a>.</p>
<p>When <a href="http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2013/02/24/373057_tasmania-news.html" target="_blank">The Mercury newspaper in Hobart asked Dr Tony Press</a>, the <span class="caps">CEO</span> of the <span class="caps">UTAS</span>-based Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, about this claim, he had the temerity to point out that Lord Monckton was being misleading (careful, he's a member of Brooks's you know.. and a Viscount).</p>
<p>Lord Monckton was piqued and <a href="http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/source/monckton/utas-fraud-3.pdf" target="_blank">wrote the letter</a> to <span class="caps">UTAS</span> Vice-Chancellor Professor Peter Rathjen - return address the Brooks's club - accusing Dr Press of “serious professional and academic misconduct and scientific fraud”, calling for an investigation and for him to be “dismissed, forthwith”.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/source/monckton/utas-fraud-3.pdf" target="_blank">letter</a> was hosted by <a href="http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/monckton-accuses-tony-press-uni-tasmania-of-fraud-and-deception/" target="_blank">climate skeptic blogger Joanne Codling</a> (aka JoNova) and promoted by News Ltd columnist and blogger <a href="http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/monckton_attacks/" target="_blank">Andrew Bolt</a>. Lord Monckton claims he has a “senior Australian police officer” on the case.</p>
<p>In a post-midnight radio interview with Sydney radio host Brian Wilshire, Lord Monckton complained people had been writing to universities to try and stop him from speaking (which they are within their rights to do, by the way). But the head of the Scotland branch of the right-wing political party <span class="caps">UKIP</span> apparently didn't see or didn't care about his own hypocrisy in demanding another academics be fired and investigated. <span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">He told </span><a href="http://www.2gb.com/article/lord-christopher-monckton" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank"><span class="caps">2GB</span>'s Wilshire</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">:</span></p>
<blockquote>
The <span class="caps">VC</span> has acknowledged it (the letter). He has got a month to get back to me substantively after which the police will be called in and, in fact I have already got a senior officer of the Australian police who is interested in this and he has said yes, this is fraud, and yes - you tell tell us the word and we will investigate. I will give the university the chance to investigate so, Mr Vice-Chancellor, if you are listening then know this. You have that month and the clock is ticking and after that the police will be coming and feeling your collar too because the arrangement I have is that if he doesn't have this properly investigated then the university will also be investigated by the police for fraud as accessories after the fact.</blockquote>
<p>Wilshire's response? “Wow - fantastic stuff”.</p>
<p>A likely unfased Dr Press told me: “I find this ironic as I was prompt and public in advocating Viscount Monckton's right to to speak on campus when some in the university were campaigning to have him banned.” I say unfased, because Lord Monckton tends to hand out threats such as this in the same way that glasses of sherry and nibbles might get passed around at Brooks's. The threats very rarely come to anything.</p>
<p>Lord Monckton has threatened to sue The Guardian columnist <a href="http://www.monbiot.com/2007/04/10/the-real-climate-censorship/" target="_blank">George Monbiot</a>, <a href="http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/monckton-responds-to-my-defense-of-abraham/" target="_blank">Professor Scott Mandia, Associate Professor John Abraham</a> and <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/07/22/monckton-threatens-to-sue-abc-calls-chairman-a-shrimp/" target="_blank">Australia's public broadcaster the <span class="caps">ABC</span></a>, to name a few. <a href="http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/" target="_blank">Professor Barry Bickmore</a> lists several others on his blog. Lord Monckton has also a<a href="http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/pachauri_letter.pdf" target="_blank">ccused the chair of the <span class="caps">IPCC</span>, Rajendra Pachauri, of “fraud”</a> and threatened to report him to authorities. <a href="http://hot-topic.co.nz/recursive-fraudery-monckton-goes-mad-in-australia/" target="_blank">Hot Topic's Gareth Renowden</a> also notes that threatening academics is a pattern of behaviour for the Viscount.</p>
<p>He consistently calls for them to be “locked up”. Lord Monckton's interview with Wilshire, along with <a href="http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/7492" target="_blank">a second on <span class="caps">2GB</span> with top-rating host Alan Jones</a>, was riddled with accusations that climate scientists are fraudulent, that global warming is a hoax, that climate science is a way for communists to instal a world government and that academics who “believe” <span class="caps">CO</span>2 emissions are causing dangerous climate change are only in it for the money. None of these claims were challenged by the hosts, who merely acted as cheerleaders.</p>
<p>Neither asked him if Lord Monckton still t<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/peer-realm-monckton-now-birther" target="_blank">hinks Barack Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate was forged</a>. They didn't ask him about his <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/02/13/climate-science-denier-lord-monckton-joins-creationist-pastor-launch-extremist-political-party" target="_blank">public endorsement of a political party fronted by a Melbourne pastor who is anti-Islam, anti-abortion, anti-Darwin</a> and who claims to have brought people back from the dead. Nor did they ask him about his many misrepresentations of the science, documented at <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths.htm" target="_blank">Skeptical Science</a>.</p>
<p>In one late-night interview segment, Lord Monckton revealed it had been astrophysicist Dr Wille Soon, whose <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/28/climate-change-sceptic-willie-soon" target="_blank">recent career has been almost entirely funded by the fossil fuel industry</a>, who had first alerted him to a leaked draft of what later became the United Nation's Copenhagen Accord. Rather than a weak non-binding agreement to make modest cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, Lord Monckton categorised the document as an attempt by the <span class="caps">UN</span> to instal world government. He told Wilshire:</p>
<blockquote>
I first got warned of this when Dr Willie Soon of the Harvard Smithsonian Institute of Physics first got hold of me in a panic in 2009. Willie Soon lives in a permanent state of panic becuase he reads all the stuff the other side writes. Poor fellow he will committ suicide one day because he reads all this horrifying fascist stuff that they churn out. He says you have got to read this one and it was the draft treaty of Copenhagen. It was 186 pages long. When Willie says you have got to read this, then you have got to read it becuase Willie knows what you have to read and what you don't. I read the whole thing. I was in Canada at the time and I was <a href="http://www.fcpp.org/event.php/250" target="_blank">giving a talk to the 25 richest men on the planet - it was at the Petroleum Club of Calgary</a> and I was giving a short presentation where I said climate change was a load of rubbish. And I said by the way, they are using this as a Trojan horse to try to put in a world government.</blockquote>
<div>
Do we have to point out it's very unlikely that Lord Monckton had the world's 25 richest men in the room all at once? Maybe we should check with Bill Gates, Carlos Slim and Warren Buffet, just to be sure?</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Anyway, back to Lord Monckton's demands of the Vice-Chancellor at the University of Tasmania. I asked the university for a response, but have not heard back. </div>
<div>
</div>
<p>But here's my wager, which if I was a member of the Brooks's club I'd be happy to stick into their Betting Book. The climate fraud police will not be coming within a frisky balloon's flight of the offices of <span class="caps">UTAS</span> any time soon. </p>
<p><em>Picture credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/matmcdermott/" target="_blank">Flickr/Matthew McDermott</a></em></p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '6922';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=6922"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/591">christopher monckton</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12145">tony press</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12146">university of tasmania</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12147">utas</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12148">danny nalliah</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7469">alan jones</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12149">briian wilshire</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10612">2gb</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12150">brooks&#039;s</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/rupert-murdoch">rupert murdoch</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/james-murdoch">james murdoch</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/climate-science">climate science</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2400">climate deniers</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1821">denial</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7470">andrew bolt</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12151">joanne codling</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3863">jo nova</a></div></div></div>Sat, 02 Mar 2013 23:17:54 +0000Graham Readfearn6922 at http://www.desmogblog.comCanadian Scientists Must Speak Out Despite Consequence, Says Andrew Weaverhttp://desmog.ca/2013/01/25/canadian-scientists-must-speak-out-despite-consequence-says-andrew-weaver
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/AWeaverLR.jpg?itok=rNdOQaU-" width="200" height="300" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><span class="dquo">“</span>If people don’t speak out there will never be any change,” says the University of Victoria’s award-winning climate scientist Andrew Weaver. </p>
<p>And the need for change in Canada, says Weaver, has never been more pressing.</p>
<div>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">“We have a crisis in Canada. That crisis is in terms of the development of information and the need for science to inform decision-making. We have replaced that with an ideological approach to decision-making, the selective use of whatever can be found to justify [policy decisions], and the suppression of scientific voices and science itself in terms of informing the development of that policy.”</span></div>
<div>
</div>
<!--break-->
<div>
Since 2007 – when the Harper government established strict communications procedures for federal scientists – journalists, academics and scientific organizations have watched the steady decline of government transparency as a message management strategy usurps what was once the free flow of federal scientific information.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>Why Government Science Matters</strong></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
There are three ways science is conducted in Canada, says Weaver: in universities, in private industry, and in government laboratories. As far as industry is concerned, he says, research is conducted for the purpose of shareholder profit or to advance the position of the company in one way or another. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Academic research –conducted in universities by professors and graduate students – is what Weaver calls “curiosity driven research.” </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Federal government research is “research done in the public good.” </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
“There are certain projects, long term monitoring for example, that will never get done at a university where you have students come and go and university professors move,” says Weaver. “These projects will also not be done by industry where they might not necessarily be in the best interests of some shareholders if, for example, the company gets bought up or moved.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Weaver says the burden of public-interest research lies solely with the government. It is the only entity suited to the challenge of transforming evidence-based science into improved public policy. It is also the government’s opportunity to demonstrate to the public where their hard-earned tax dollars are being directed. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
“It’s important for the taxpayer to know what their funding is being used for,” says Weaver. “When the government is conducting science it is fundamentally important that taxpayers knows what science is being done and also that other scientists know what science is being done so science can evolve.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Two things happen when science communication is suppressed, he adds. The first is science fails to evolve. The second is that “public interest or public value in science diminishes.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The suppression of scientific communication we are seeing in Canada, says Weaver, “can be viewed as undermining the role of science in society and the role of science in decision-making.” There is an underlying explanation for this, he says. It is the current government’s energy superpower agenda, where science “can at times conflict with approaches to policy making.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Therein lies the rub. “This is why scientists in both universities and at the federal level are so aghast at what has been going in Canada during the last few years. It’s the muzzling of scientists, the shutting down of key federal science programs that were involved in monitoring for the public good, and the reliance of the government on industry to do monitoring for itself. As a member of the general public this concerns me.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
This concerns Weaver most because of the crucial relationship between science and democracy. “Science can never proscribe policy,” he says. “It’s really important that scientists and the public know that. Science never says this is the policy we should implement. But what science is there to do is to inform those policy discussions. You make the policy based on evidence.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
“What you cannot do in a democratic society is suppress evidence because then you’re into propaganda and ideology. And this is what is happening in Canada. Evidence used to inform society – to determine whether we are in favour of a policy or not – is suppressed. And the media’s access to that evidence is suppressed.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
“The fallout is that media can no longer serve the role it should in a functioning democratic society: to inform the general public about the issues involved in making policy and to hold our elected leaders accountable for the information and policies that they put in place.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
“We have a problem,” says Weaver, when the “silencing of science throws a wedge into our democratic process.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>“We Cannot Stand By”</strong></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Weaver says that federal scientists, especially those recently ousted from their public servant positions, are ideally situated to oppose what many have characterized the Harper government’s attack on science. </div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
“I do not accept that they cannot speak out. I think they need to muster the courage to tell it like it is. There are federal scientists who can tell it like it is. I recognize that there are consequences but you know what? This is a crisis and you can’t rely on a few individuals outside the federal government to speak up.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Get the public sector employees union engaged, says Weaver, and “stop cowering behind the façade of ‘I can’t speak or I’ll be disciplined.’”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Weaver, these days, is in no mood to entertain silence because of the threat of reprimand. The stakes are just too high and the need for change too great. Even the public, says Weaver, is fighting on the scientists’ behalf. For that and many other reasons scientists cannot ignore their own plight. “They need to get engaged.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
“I feel strongly about that because when anybody speaks up, of course, there are always consequences. But if people don’t speak out there will never be any change.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
No matter our mild-mannered reputation, “we cannot stand by and watch what is happening to our scientific institutions and to the role of federal government science without standing up.” The days of protecting one’s own little turf and hoping someone else’s will be cut are over, says Weaver. In particular, the cuts are so deep and so devastating to monitoring programs that “everyone needs to recognize that what is happening in Canada is hurting all Canadians and we need to work together on this.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
One need only point to the systematic dismantling of Canada’s ocean contaminants program to see what Weaver means. In May, the Harper government announced the marine contaminants program had to go. More than 50 employees were told their services had been terminated effective April 1, 2013. The loss of this program came with a massive reduction of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which lost over 1,000 employees in one fell swoop.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
“Look what is happening,” says Weaver. “We’re shutting down the ocean contaminants program in Canada, right across the nation. Canada no longer has a marine contaminants program. Oh, that’s convenient. Why would we want such programs when we might find nasty things, nasty toxins in the water that might actually cause us to not put pipelines across British Columbia or put tankers on the coast?”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
This is the cost of our silence, according to Weaver. “This is what happens when people don’t speak out. The next is the smokestack emissions group shut down. Why? We don’t want to monitor those emissions. Let industry monitor those emissions. We have the Experimental Lakes Area shut down. Why? We’d rather have industry look at that, we don’t need pristine areas for federal government and other scientists to work at.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>Canada on the International Stage</strong></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
While the Harper government scales back the science in the country, we seem to be ramping up production of unconventional fuel sources, both with fracking for shale gas, most notably in <span class="caps">B.C.</span> and Alberta, and with the extraction of tar sands bitumen. At the same time, Canada has experienced a considerable flagging of the nation’s reputation on the international stage. Canada, once widely beloved as a peace-keeping bastion of diplomatic good will, is now seen on the world stage as a climate laggard, saboteur of the Kyoto Accord, and obstructionist of international environmental talks.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
“It’s embarrassing,” says Weaver. “It’s quite sad.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
Like many Canadians, Weaver remembers a time when American backpackers would pin Canadian flags on their bags. “Things are a little different now,” he says.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
“As Canadians we’re not viewed like we were in the past. We’re viewed like we have a government that believes we are more militaristic than other nations; a nation that is built on the exploitation of a natural resource; that come hell or high water were going to extract and sell to Asia and that we don’t really care about environmental issues.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
“This does not bode well for Canada’s long term international influence.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
The fact that the Prime Minister and his administration seem hell-bent on removing any obstacles to tar sands expansion and exports seems to confirm the negative sentiments. “We’re so myopic in our vision that we’re just going to get that bitumen out of the ground, we’re going to ship it in pipelines to Asia as fast as we can. Let’s get it out, make money now. Who cares about the future, or future generations? Let’s do it now, for today. Let’s live the high life now.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<strong>“This is not economically sustainable, this is not fiscally sustainable, this is not socially sustainable and this is not environmentally sustainable. This is madness.</strong> But this is what we’re doing in Canada and this is the path our current government is taking while removing any barriers that might actually stop it from happening.”</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
“This is a crisis of democracy.”</div>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '6833';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=6833"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/andrew-weaver">andrew weaver</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/climate-science">climate science</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2499">scientists</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10920">federal scientists</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2337">funding cuts</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8119">Harper Government</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1976">emissions</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5693">Policy</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11790">suppression</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10927">muzzling</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9460">journalism</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7295">communications</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10530">transparency</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7828">Universities</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5692">Industry</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3619">research</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11791">taxpayer</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2632">tar sands</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11225">energy superpower</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7885">Evidence</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7941">Democracy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11792">ocean contaminants</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11566">Institute of Ocean Sciences</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/603">british columbia</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5538">bitumen</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5534">Northern Gateway Pipeline</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4389">Enbridge</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11793">smokestack</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10341">monitoring</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11224">Experimental Lakes Area</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11228">toxins</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5133">fracking</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5565">shale gas</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1165">Alberta</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/916">kyoto</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11794">obstructionist</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11282">climate talks</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11795">international reputation</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3329">sustainability</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11796">crisis</a></div></div></div>Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:00:00 +0000Carol Linnitt6833 at http://www.desmogblog.comAfter 25 Years, It’s Time To Stop Spinning Our Wheelshttp://www.desmogblog.com/2013/01/02/after-25-years-it-s-time-stop-spinning-our-wheels
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/DrSuzuki-computerSm.jpg?itok=gi8VJ2Fl" width="200" height="300" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><em>By <a href="http://www.davidsuzuki.org">David Suzuki</a></em><br />
<br />
In 1988, hundreds of scientists and policy-makers met in Toronto for a major international conference on climate change. They were sufficiently alarmed by the accumulated evidence for human-caused global warming that they <a href="http://www.greenparty.ca/releases/30.06.2008">issued a release stating</a>, “Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war.”<br />
<br />
They urged world leaders to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2005. Had we heeded that warning and embarked on a campaign to meet the target, Canadians would now be healthier (because of reduced air pollution), have greater reserves of energy and more jobs. We’d also be a world leader in renewable energy and could have saved tens of billions of dollars.</p>
<!--break-->
<p>The year was significant for environmentalists. In 1988, George <span class="caps">H.W.</span> Bush ran for the highest office in the <span class="caps">U.S.</span> and promised to be an “<a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/bush-domestic/">environmental president</a>”. He didn’t have a green bone in his body, but public pressure compelled him to make a commitment he ultimately didn’t keep. That year, Margaret Thatcher was filmed picking up litter. She turned to the camera and said, “I’m a greenie, too.”<br />
<br />
Canada’s Prime Minister Brian Mulroney was also re-elected in 1988. He appointed a bright new political star, Lucien Bouchard, as environment minister. I asked Bouchard during an interview what he considered to be our most important environmental issue. “Global warming,” he responded. I continued: “How serious is it?” His answer: “It threatens the survival of our species. We have to act now.”<br />
<br />
In 1988, the environment was a top public concern, scientists spoke out and politicians said the right things. Global warming was a pressing and present issue. Now, 25 years later, carbon dioxide emissions continue to rise, and we’re already seeing the consequences – more extreme weather events, melting glaciers and Arctic ice, rising sea levels, reduced water flows in rivers and climate-related illness and death, among others. It’s driven in part by rapid economic growth in countries like China, India and Brazil. At the same time, most industrialized nations, whose use of fossil fuels created the problem of excess greenhouse gases, have done little to reduce emissions.</p>
<p>Humans are distinguished from other species by a massive brain that enables us to imagine a future and influence it by what we do in the present. By using experience, knowledge and insight, our ancestors recognized they could anticipate dangers and opportunities and take steps to exploit advantages and avoid hazards. Scientists and supercomputers have amplified our ability to look ahead. For decades, experts have warned us that human numbers, technology, hyper-consumption and a global economy are altering the chemical, geological and biological properties of the biosphere.<br />
<br />
In 1992, more than 1,700 eminent scientists, including 104 Nobel prizewinners, signed the “<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/about/1992-world-scientists.html">World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity</a>”, which included this urgent warning: “No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.”<br />
<br />
The document concluded that environmentally damaging activity must be brought under control and the integrity of Earth’s ecosystems protected, critical resources managed more effectively, human population growth stabilized, poverty reduced and eventually eliminated, and sexual equality and guarantees of women’s reproductive rights ensured.<br />
<br />
The sooner we act, the easier it will be to overcome these difficult challenges. Every year that we stall makes it more costly and challenging, with increasing negative impacts on humans and our environment. There are signs of hope. Many countries – as well as cities, states and provinces – are taking global warming seriously and are working to reduce emissions and shift to cleaner energy sources. Some world leaders are even <a href="http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=41685#.UMkJWeQ71Bk">questioning our current paradigm</a>, where the economy is made a priority above all else.<br />
<br />
This is crucial. Over and over, the economy has determined the extent of our response, but how much value does it place on breathable air, drinkable water, edible food and stable weather and climate? Surely the economy is the means to a better future, not an end in itself. Surely it must be subordinate to a rich, diverse ecosphere that sustains all life. Let’s hope this year ushers in a new way of living on and caring for our planet.<br /><br /><br /><em>Learn more at <a href="http://www.davidsuzuki.org">www.davidsuzuki.org</a>.</em></p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '6767';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=6767"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1170">David Suzuki</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/climate-science">climate science</a></div></div></div>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 13:00:00 +0000Guest6767 at http://www.desmogblog.comPowell Climate Science Pie Chart Featured On The Young Turkshttp://www.desmogblog.com/2012/12/17/powell-climate-science-pie-chart-featured-young-turks
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/Powell%20Pie%20Chart.png?itok=N3ot1Cao" width="200" height="136" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><a href="http://www.tytnetwork.com/">The Young Turks</a> discussed <a href="http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart">James Lawrence Powell's pie chart</a> and analysis of climate science on the show this weekend.<br /><br />
Powell's pie chart study has gone viral in the past month, thanks to coverage by a wide array of outlets, including <a href="http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart">DeSmogBlog</a>, <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/pie-chart-13950-peer-reviewed-scientific-articles-earths-climate-finds-24-rejecting-global-warming.html">TreeHugger</a>, <a href="http://www.upworthy.com/the-most-devastatingly-convincing-pie-chart-youve-ever-seen?c=upw5">UpWorthy</a>, <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scientific_papers.html">Slate</a> and more.<br /><br />
Watch the segment with Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian, and Ben Mankiewicz talking about the Powell pie chart on <a href="http://youtu.be/0n06BWMOh8M">The Young Turks</a>: <br /><object height="309" width="550"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0n06BWMOh8M?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="309" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0n06BWMOh8M?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="550"></embed></object></p>
<!--break-->
<p>For more information about <a href="http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart">Jim Powell's climate science analysis</a>, read the original post.<br /><br />
Share the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152308069530422&amp;set=a.10150186908005422.423788.372799605421&amp;type=1&amp;theater">Facebook-friendly pie chart graphic</a> with your friends and family as well. </p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '6758';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=6758"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7318">James Lawrence Powell</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11429">powell pie chart</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/climate-science">climate science</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3062">climate denial</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11430">peer-reviewed science</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/11431">the young turks</a></div></div></div>Tue, 18 Dec 2012 00:14:48 +0000Brendan DeMelle6758 at http://www.desmogblog.comWhy Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Charthttp://www.desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/pie-chart.jpg?itok=6X--6B1h" width="200" height="154" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p><em>This is a guest post by <a href="http://www.jamespowell.org/">James Lawrence Powell</a>.</em>*<br /><br />
Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.</p>
<p>I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles. See <a href="http://www.jamespowell.org/methodology/method.html">methodology</a>.<br /><br /><img alt="" src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.png" style="width: 550px; height: 374px;" /></p>
<!--break-->
<p>I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that “reject” human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.</p>
<p>This work follows that of Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase “global climate change.” She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected human-caused global warming. Using her criteria and time-span, I get the same result. Deniers attacked Oreskes and her findings, but they have held up.</p>
<p>Some articles on global warming may use other keywords, for example, “climate change” without the “global” prefix. But there is no reason to think that the proportion rejecting global warming would be any higher.</p>
<p>By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than <span class="caps">CO</span>2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is <a href="http://www.jamespowell.org/Rejections/index.html">here</a>. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to “global warming,” for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.</p>
<p>Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.</p>
<p><img alt="" src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Powell-Papers-Climate.png" style="width: 550px; height: 375px;" /></p>
<p>The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The top ten countries represented, in order, are <span class="caps">USA</span>, England, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Spain, and Netherlands. (The chart shows results through 9 November 2012.)</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database">Global warming deniers</a></strong> often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers.</p>
<p>A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.</p>
<p>Anyone can repeat this search and post their findings. Another reviewer would likely have slightly different standards than mine and get a different number of rejecting articles. But no one will be able to reach a different conclusion, for only one conclusion is possible: Within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.</p>
<p>Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.</p>
<p><em><a href="http://www.jamespowell.org/">Jim Powell</a> is a science author. He has been a college and museum president and was a member of the National Science Board for 12 years, appointed first by President Reagan and then by President George <span class="caps">H. W.</span> Bush.</em></p>
<p>* The original version has been updated to note one additional paper.</p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '6662';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=6662"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7318">James Lawrence Powell</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3062">climate denial</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1751">peer review</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/science">Science</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/climate-science">climate science</a></div></div></div>Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:26:08 +0000Guest6662 at http://www.desmogblog.comRomney Aide Andrea Saul Denied Climate Connection to Hurricane Katrina, Is Sandy Next?http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/31/romney-aide-andrea-saul-denies-climate-connection-hurricane-katrina-sandy-next
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/andrea%20saul%20wide%20shot.jpeg?itok=7XrAZLN6" width="180" height="148" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Over half a decade ago, <strong><a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/blog/science-denial-and-andrea-saul-%E2%80%93-romney-2012-campaign-spokesperson">Andrea Saul</a></strong>, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's press secretary, denied any link between Hurricane Katrina and climate change.</p>
<p>Working as a hired gun on behalf of ExxonMobil at the Washington, <span class="caps">DC</span> <span class="caps">PR</span> firm <strong><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DCI_Group"><span class="caps">DCI</span> Group</a></strong>, Saul was listed as the contact person on a press release that <a href="http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&amp;STORY=/www/story/03-30-2006/0004330403&amp;EDATE=">denied that global warming is intensifying extreme weather events</a>:</p>
<p>“<em>Coming off one of the most devastating hurricane seasons in recent memory, many are quick to blame the strength and frequency of these storms on global warming. Leading climate scientists, however, say there is no link between increased storm activity and a massive change in global climate.</em>”</p>
<p>The 2006 Saul/<span class="caps">DCI</span> press release quotes the Koch-funded <strong><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute">Cato Institute</a></strong>'s <strong><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/patrick-michaels">Patrick Michaels</a></strong>, who stated, “There are many more factors determining hurricane frequency and severity, some of which (such as westerly wind strength) should become <span class="caps">LESS</span> conducive to hurricanes as the planet warms.” </p>
<p>Michaels is a notorious climate change denier who stated in August 2010 on <em><span class="caps">CNN</span> </em>that <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-skeptic-pat-michaels-admits-cnn-forty-percent-his-funding-comes-oil-industry">40 percent of his funding comes from the oil industry</a>. As with Hurricane Katrina, Pat Michaels this week <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/10/31/merchants-doubt-deny-climate-change-connection-hurricane-sandy">denied any connection between climate change and Hurricane Sandy</a>.<br /><br />
Will Andrea Saul, speaking on behalf of team Romney/Ryan, be next to deny that <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-01/its-global-warming-stupid">global warming added the steroids</a> that increased the devastation of Hurricane Sandy?<!--break--></p>
<p>Andrea Saul isn't the only Romney aide with a <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/romney-flack-promoted-climate-denial-behalf-exxon">connection to Exxon's former <span class="caps">PR</span> shop, <span class="caps">DCI</span> Group</a>. David Halperin notes on <em>Republic Report </em>that <a href="http://www.republicreport.org/2012/romney-advisors-saul-and-talent-tied-to-climate-denial/">Saul's colleague <strong>Matt Rhoades</strong>, Romney’s campaign manager, also worked at <span class="caps">DCI</span></a>, from 2007-10.</p>
<p>Every year, nearly 400,000 deaths are attributable to climate change, “mainly due to hunger and communicable diseases that affect above all children in developing countries,” according to a <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/26/climate-change-damaging-global-economy">2011 report</a> published by <span class="caps">DARA</span>'s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Vulnerable_Forum"><em>Climate Vulnerable Forum</em></a>. On a parallel track, 443,000 people “die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke,” <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/osh.htm">according to the <em>Centers for Disease Control</em></a>.</p>
<p>Obfuscation or denial of a link between climate change and extreme weather is as irresponsible as denying the link between cigarettes and cancer, yet both <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACkkl4k7SMk">Romney</a> and his running mate <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/11/677051/meet-paul-ryan-climate-denier-conspiracy-theorist-koch-acolyte/?mobile=nc">Paul Ryan</a> continue to re-fortify their posts in Camp Denial.<br /><br />
The question must be asked: how much of an influence do Andrea Saul and Matt Rhoades have over this campaign's ostrich-like climate denial? Their former employer, <span class="caps">DCI</span> Group, after all, made its name in the <span class="caps">PR</span> world <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DCI_Group">working on behalf of the tobacco industry</a>.<br /><br />
Kert Davies, Greenpeace <span class="caps">USA</span> Research Director, writes over at <em><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/11/01/1125491/andrea-saul-romney-campaign-advisor-climate-change-disinformer/">Think Progress</a></em>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Saul worked with a <span class="caps">DCI</span> Tech Central Station team that created fake <span class="caps">TV</span> newcasts that “reported” no connection between hurricanes and climate change. These tapes were distributed to Gulf state <span class="caps">TV</span> stations. The Saul tape and a Mississippi newscast that aired the piece were preserved by the Center for Investigative Reporting.</p>
<p>Watch it:</p>
<p><object height="338" width="450"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DXBqe7ngp24?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="338" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DXBqe7ngp24?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450"></embed></object></p>
<p>Unlike Saul’s collection of climate deniers, real scientists <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/31/climate-change-hurricane-sandy-global-warming_n_2050516.html">say this is dead wrong</a>. There is indeed <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/26/1097391/climate-change-frankenstorm-beyond-strange-unprecedented-bizarre/?mobile=nc" target="_blank" title="link">a link</a> between stronger hurricanes like Sandy and global warming.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong><span class="caps">UPDATE</span></strong>: An attendee at a Mitt Romney campaign rally today tried to get Romney to talk about climate change. Watch as attendee Ted Glick's “End Climate Silence” sign is ripped away and the crowd shouts him down with chants of '<span class="caps">USA</span>, <span class="caps">USA</span>'. (<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/11/01/1126361/confronted-by-protester-romney-maintains-climate-silence/">H/T ThinkProgress</a>)<br /><object height="309" width="550"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/43lcd11QUqo?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="309" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/43lcd11QUqo?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="550"></embed></object></p>
<p>Photo Credit: <a href="http://www.polluterwatch.com/blog/science-denial-and-andrea-saul-%E2%80%93-romney-2012-campaign-spokesperson">PolluterWatch</a></p>
</div></div></div><!-- iCopyright Horizontal Tag -->
<div class="icopyright-article-tools-horizontal icopyright-article-tools-left">
<script type="text/javascript">
var icx_publication_id = 14813;
var icx_content_id = '6628';
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/rights/js/horz-toolbar.js"></script>
<noscript>
<a class="icopyright-article-tools-noscript"
href="http://license.icopyright.net/3.14813?icx_id=6628"
target="_blank"
title="Main menu of all reuse options">
<img height="25" width="27" border="0" align="bottom"
alt="[Reuse options]"
src="http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.png"/>
Click here for reuse options!
</a>
</noscript>
</div>
<!-- iCopyright Tag -->
<div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5086">PR</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/public-relations">Public Relations</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/propaganda">propaganda</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9878">andrea saul</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2257">mitt romney</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/climate-science">climate science</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/657">ExxonMobil</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1370">cnn</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10808">David Halperin</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10809">Matt Rhoades Mitt Romney</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10810">Andrea Saul Mitt Romney</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10811">Andrea Saul DCI Group</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10812">Matt Rhoades DCI Group</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/8462">Republic Report</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10813">Climate Vulnerable Forum</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1396">pat michaels</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10814">Center for Disease Control</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2308">CDC</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10815">DARA</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/patrick-michaels">patrick michaels</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/cato-institute">cato institute</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4027">Koch Family Foundations</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5188">Kochtopus</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1800">koch industries</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/9130">Koch Industries climate denial</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/939">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/913">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2040">hurricane katrina</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10799">Hurricane Sandy</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/dci-group">DCI group</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10816">Tobacco Lobby</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10817">Tobbaco Lobbyists</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5081">Merchants of Doubt</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6679">Paul Ryan</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10818">2012 Presidential Election</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2214">climate change deniers</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/climate-change-denial">climate change denial</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7481">climate change skepticism</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/climate-change-skeptics">climate change skeptics</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2352">global warming denial</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/3063">global warming deniers</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/10819">Climate Warming Skeptics</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4216">global warming skepticism</a></div></div></div>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 21:00:42 +0000Brendan DeMelle6628 at http://www.desmogblog.com